News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Creating a Timeless Gem
« on: October 29, 2009, 09:47:38 PM »
Okay…it has been 3 days since my last post related to my reading of “The Links” by Robert Hunter and during that time I have gone from page 33 to page 63.  30 pages in 3 days…not too shabby considering “I am not that strong of a reader” (as an aside, can anyone name the skit or the actors in the SNL piece that quote comes from).

Anyway…in one of my previous posts on the book, I talked about the Hunter quote regarding the Old Course being one of the worst routed courses in the world. 

On this thread, we had an excellent discussion about the Old Course, routing, architectural formula’s, quirks, etc.  One of the responses that sticks in my head was Tom Paul’s when he said the following…

“So what is Hunter's perhaps larger point in what he said about TOC compared to golf courses he saw being built? It looks to me like he's saying that if golf architects and golf architecture just gets into the same laundry list of "standardizations" (architectural formulaics) he felt it was getting into back then that it would pretty much serve to create courses that were pretty damn boring day in and day out simply because they really had little to no variety and consequently little to no interest or charm or fascination or mystery et al. About TOC Hunter ended up saying on page 35 it had more "vitality" than any other course in the world.

Again, was Hunter saying or meaning that what he referred to as TOC's bad routing an architectural knock on it? Hell no! I thnk there is no question he was making a very subtle and great point, and apparently subtely mocking towards the standardized and formulaic architects and architecture he was watching get built all over the place! His real point was TOC's bad routing (in the opinions of those standardized and formulaic mentalities) BE DAMNED----it was the most interesting course in the world despite that---or EVEN because of that!!”

In addition to reading 30 more pages in that book over the last 3 days, I’ve also been thinking about this statement and some of the other statements.  And then today, as I finished the “Laying out the Course” chapter Hunter ended it with a recap of Dr. Mackenzie’s 13 items which define an ideal course and then he lists his own 15 point checklist for laying out a course.  Included in this list is…the course should be at least 6,000 yards and you should WALK FORWARD to the next tee box to leave room to move the tees back and expand the course to 7,000 yards, eliminate parallel holes, and do not have holes of the same character following one another.

Okay, those are his and Dr. Mackenize’s checklists.  But how can St. Andrews break some of these rules and be so awesome and timeless.  In fact, as I think about it doesn’t Cypress Point (another timeless gem) break some of these rules.  Doesn’t it have back to back par 3’s?  I’ve never played it, but I think that is true and that would seem to break one of Hunter’s rules. 

So, here is my point/question…

Could it be possible that if someone wants to create a very good and solid golf course, they should abide by the rules laid out in all these golf course architecture books/manuals?  BUT…if someone wants to create something special, they need to break some of these rules?  Could this breaking of the “rules” help a course get that little extra spice that helps a courses vitality (to steal from Mr. Paul who borrowed from Mr. Hunter)?

I am curious.  Have any of you all played some of these timeless gems?  Do any of them have any quirks or do the break the “rules” in some way?  I know East Lake has numerous parallel holes on the back nine, but it is still a special course.  Pete Dye Golf Club has some blind shots…and that is a “no no” according to Mackenzie…but yet it is rated as Top 100 by all the major raters/critics.

Any thoughts or comments?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2009, 09:52:11 PM »
Well, starting with The Old Course, you can play it backward and forward.  If that doesn't break the rules, burn the rule book!
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2009, 10:07:51 PM »
I think if you are going to bend a 'rule' you better be getting something good in return, really break one or two or three in a row and the return should be fantastic.
That way you will be seen as bold and inventive and few people will give you any grief over what you've done. 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 10:52:59 PM »
The back to back par 3s at Cypress Point couldn't be any more different.  All they really have is common is a forced carry - over the Pacific Ocean!  ;D

JeffTodd

  • Karma: +0/-0

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 11:09:11 PM »
I must say, I have laughed out loud regarding things I've read on this site today a lot.  My wife has asked me numerous times what is so funny.  In this instance, a forced carry over the Pacific Ocean.  Now that is funny.

Seriously though, I am really wondering about this breaking the rules thing and I am thinking it might be correct.

Hunter rule 14; have as few penal bunkers as possible, only enough to protect the quality of the hole.  Doesn't Oakmont have a bunch of penal bunkers?  The pews, I think is the name of one hole's bunkers.  But that course is a timeless gem.

Both Hunter and Mackenzie say that, or allude to the fact that, a course needs to challenge the low handicapper but be playable for the high handicapper.  Isn't Pine Valley unbelievably difficult to play?  Don't they avoid having hackers out there at all costs?

Hunter says that a good course/hole needs to call upon every shot in the bag and make the player use his mid-irons, spoons, cleek, and brassie.  C'mon, I've played a few unanimous gems and I have NEVER, EVER pulled out a cleek, brassie, or a friggin' spoon!!!  Clearly, these lists are hog-wash!!! ;)

Obviously, I am tired and slap-happy based on my last comment...but in all seriousness everything before that was sincere nad serious.  

I welcome all thoughts and comments.

Good night!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2009, 11:10:30 PM »
Jeff...I am rolling with laughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You nailed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BABY!!!!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

JeffTodd

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 11:25:04 PM »
Jeff...I am rolling with laughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You nailed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BABY!!!!
Just last week I am sitting in a meeting when someone breaks into "hey, I know you, I know you."

That skit will never die.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2009, 11:52:14 PM »

Mac

TOC was and is the face of golf both old and new. TOC set the standards and became the centrepiece for the Rules. TOC is a great golf course and if the Old Lady’s chaperone (the wind) is, awaken; you are in for an interesting round, as it will fight to keep her honour.

TOC was old in the 19th Century; it was even older in the 20th Century. What is there to understand, don’t waste your time talking about her, get out and play the course, then discuss the merits of your game which may well be different to the 4 balls before and after you.

We modern guys just love to overcomplicate everything, yet the secret to a good course is so very simple, it can be discovered by a simple question ‘Did you enjoy it’? A short Yes or No is all that is required, those smiling don’t need to be asked.

Then we must look to the history, swim in the thrill of following in the footsteps of all our current and past heroes. The excitement of the 1st Tee, perhaps just a handful of people are watching yet you feel the eyes of hundreds if not thousand boring down upon you. Standing in line waiting to Tee off, you hear all manners of prayers but the main one always seems to convey the following meaning ‘God please do not let me embarrass myself. The final hole does not fill you full of nerves, you have been looking forward to it, and after all, you have just survived the Road Hole. The 18th Old Tom’s Hole, the Swilken Bridge with the need to take that important photo, that Nicklaus Moment (or who ever is your hero), before moving on through The Valley of Sin onto the 18th Green where many Championships have been won and lost. Nevertheless, it makes no difference to you, as you are already on Cloud 9, you must have won The Open, listen to the crowds cheer, no pressure the game is won, just the last shot before you throw your ball into the crowd. Walking back to the Clubhouse steps, you, after just one round of TOC have become a veteran and can say with pride TOC of course I have played the Old Lady.

Don’t worry, the locals know, they just have to look at your face, see that permanent smile across your face to know that you are no longer TOC Virgin.

The second best prize for playing a good round of golf is that smile, of course the best ever prize in winning The Open at St Andrews, but that does not matter, well not today, after all have you not just completed your first round of golf on The Old Course at St Andrews.

There is nothing complicated in that, it’s about playing the game of golf and meeting all the challenges as your map your way around the Great Old Lady. Let’s not forget being a Lady, there will still be many secrets for the golfer to uncover. The Old Lady may be kind at times but beware she can defend her honour with brute force from time to time.

Not certain about creating a Timeless Gem after all TOC is the Crown Jewels. 

Melvyn   



Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2009, 05:35:28 AM »
Mac:

The only rules in golf, concern the playing of the game. I think Hunter's & MacKenzie's rules should be taken as guidelines. This isn't mathematics where we have theorems, axioms, rules and definitions (although some people think it is judging by the interest in the "Definition of a Cape Hole" thread).

Ballybunion (Old) has 2 par threes in a row, both of which are great. There's nothing quirky about them; they fit perfectly with the routing.

Dónal.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2009, 08:04:16 AM »
Melvyn...excellent!!!

Donal...you are totally correct.  Simply guidelines, not hard and fast mathematical rules.

I like the smile rule that Melvyn alluded to and the "does it fit" rule that Donal discussed.

Nice work, thanks.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2009, 12:32:02 PM »
Donal...

You are right on the money.  page 69-70..."these principles...should...appear to the reader as suggestions (rather) than commandments.  Dogmatism on the part of any one...is unwarranted and unwise"

Of course these comments are in relation to Mr. Hunter's comments on his rules for creating greens and greensites, but I would have to assume this feeling applies to all rules concerning golf course construction.

However, I am still convinced that you need to break some rules in order to create a timeless gem.  Otherwise there won't be that intial controversy that Dr. Mackenzie talks about in his book. 
 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2009, 03:33:43 PM »
Mac:

I realize it must seem like architects such as Hunter (and others) are contradicting themselves if they write in a book, on the one hand, that parallel holes are bad architecture but on the other hand sing the praises of a course like TOC that does have a large string of holes that are parallel or play parallel.

However, there seems to be a distinct difference with the architectural parallelism of TOC compared to parallel holes on most all other courses in that the architectural features on the parallel holes of TOC actually interwine and intermingle strategically going both ways.

In a certain sense the holes going both ways sort of meld into one regardless of which way one plays them and that aspect alone I think is pretty unique to TOC that oddly and ironically never really was copied quite to that extent anywhere else.

The evolutionary reasons TOC came to be that way are also very interesting.

Another way to look at this oddity and seeming contradiction is that TOC has for many years been praised as a golf course with some extreme "strategic width" while at the same time the actual width of most of the golf course probably is not much more than 250-300 yards wide. THAT is a very narrow over-all routing but we do know TOC has for years been known for its fascinating "strategic width" and I think I just explained both why and how that can be on a site like that one which is quite similar (narrow) to some of the oldest TRUE linksland golf courses.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2009, 03:40:07 PM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Creating a Timeless Gem
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2009, 03:58:59 PM »
Tom...

Thanks for the response.  I am getting it.  I will continue to learn more and ask many more questions about TOC and others. 

I'll share a few things with you and the others readers at this time and, as always, open it up for further comments or suggestions.

I am in love with golf.  I appreciate good golf course architecture, but I hope to be able to recognize it and appreciate it even more in the future as my self-education process matures.

My goal for my golf game is to be able to play well enough to appreicate playing on a "good" course.  As I've mentioned my first round of golf was in May of 2007.  I hit a 121, but was hooked.  Two years, a few months, a two new hips later, I am an 11.1 handicap with a career low round of 81.  So, I think I am making some progress towards being able to play well enough to appreciate a good course.

In all of my reading and studying, I am led to believe that all of those "in the know" regard the Old Course as the greatest course in the world...if not the greatest, certainly one of the greatest.  I am getting set up to play it in May of 2011 and I am totally excited about it.

Another course I am led to believe is worthy of being considered the best course in the world is NGLA.  Although, it is not public I hope to be able to play that one day as well to be able to understand and appreciate it.  I have enjoyed the thread on this site about CBM being the father of golf course architecture in America.  Of course, whether or not someone believes that fact disticntly is irrelevant...as he certainly is one of the fathers.  Just like TOC and NGLA may not be the absolute best course inthe world, but they are certainly worthy of being discussed as being among the very best courses.

So, in short, please don't mistake my questions and comments as being critical or antagonistic towards any of these courses.  I am admiring them from a far and simply learning, sometimes by playing devils advocate, about them.

Thanks, again.

Mac
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.